"It reduces potentially good-serving lives to chaotic life-long excursions into futile, perpetual guilt and isolation" is not a generic description of single people. I wonder if you were being quite mischievous, Eldad, to saddle the phrase with that enjoinment. But perhaps you were not being disingenuous. You've probably never been gay, and you may not be aware of the unique array of frustrations that goes along with having a perfectly functional (i.e., not intrinsically hampered) form of love-oriented sexuality, and being blocked from using it because it is mysteriously deemed sinful - AND in many cases, feeling obliged to channel it into a personally repugnant and deceitful substitute sexuality purely for the sake of satisfying social tyranny.

Heterosexual single people experience none of this. So my phrase resolutely shakes that invidious attachment out of its fur.

With us boylovers (since I hold both flags), when it comes to hypothetical marital-type sexual relationships, there are 1001 practical problems related to true mutuality, consent, appropriateness, temporariness and widely differing mental landscapes. We stop ourselves not because of an ineffable, arbitrary sin that no one can explain in terms of a deficit of love, but because we might actually sin against the Christian rule of love by imposing sexuality where it is unwanted or otherwise intrinsically (not just conventionally) functionally/practically inappropriate. So my phrase also respectfully repels the single boylovers, who may instead be living "good-serving lives with some degree of isolation but with no ongoing reason for guilt."